Kouri Richins seeks new trial, alleging judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct

Kouri Richins appears at a sentencing hearing with her defense attorney Wendy Lewis, left, in 3rd District Court in Park City on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP, Pool) Photo: Associate press

PARK CITY, Utah — Convicted murderer Kouri Richins is asking a Summit County judge to throw out his convictions and grant her a new trial, arguing she was denied a fair trial because of judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct.

Attorneys for Richins filed a 14-page motion Tuesday asking the court to overturn District Judge Richard Mrazik’s convictions and assign the request to a different judge, alleging that Mrazik repeatedly favored prosecutors throughout the three-week trial.

Richins’ legal team argues the court’s conduct, combined with what it describes as the improper admission of extensive evidence about her financial dealings, deprived her of an impartial trial and violated her constitutional rights.

“The Court’s repeated assistance to the prosecution and disparate treatment of defense counsel before the jury denied Ms. Richins her right to a fair trial,” the motion states.

Richins was convicted in March of aggravated murder in the 2022 death of her husband, Eric Richins, along with attempted aggravated murder, two counts of insurance fraud and one count of forgery. Prosecutors alleged she poisoned her husband with a fatal dose of fentanyl after years of financial deception and an increasingly strained marriage.

The high-profile case drew national attention after Richins, a Kamas real estate agent and mother of three, wrote and promoted a children’s book about grief following her husband’s death. Prosecutors later alleged the book was part of an effort to portray herself as a grieving widow while concealing her role in the killing.

Earlier this month, Mrazik sentenced Richins to life in prison without the possibility of parole for Eric Richins’ murder, plus additional prison terms for the remaining convictions. The sentences will be served consecutively.

In Tuesday’s filing, defense attorneys claim Mrazik repeatedly interrupted defense counsel, assisted prosecutors with objections and spoke to defense attorneys in a disparaging manner in front of the jury while treating prosecutors more favorably. The motion cites examples from the trial transcript, arguing the court’s conduct created the appearance of bias and improperly influenced jurors.

The motion also alleges Mrazik at times raised objections on prosecutors’ behalf and, in some instances, ruled in their favor without prosecutors first objecting. Richins’ attorneys contend those actions blurred the line between neutral referee and advocate for the state.

Richins’ attorneys also contend prosecutors introduced too much evidence about her past financial dealings, despite the court’s earlier limits on what could be presented at trial. They argue the testimony unfairly portrayed her as dishonest and prejudiced the jury.

The filing compares the case to the recent South Carolina Supreme Court decision ordering a new trial in a separate high-profile murder case, arguing that years of financial misconduct were improperly used to establish motive.

The motion is the latest in a series of unsuccessful legal efforts by Richins’ defense team. Before trial, her attorneys sought to move the case out of Summit County, arguing extensive publicity had made it impossible to seat an impartial jury. They also challenged the admissibility of key evidence, sought to limit prosecutors’ use of evidence related to Richins’ finances and business dealings, and repeatedly asked the court to dismiss or narrow portions of the case. The court denied those requests, and the trial proceeded in Summit County.

Richins’ attorneys are asking for an evidentiary hearing to present testimony and additional evidence supporting their claims.

The Summit County Attorney’s Office had not yet filed a response to the motion as of Wednesday afternoon. Under Utah procedure, prosecutors will have an opportunity to oppose Richins’ request before the court determines whether a hearing or new trial is warranted.